The basic idea is to lessen the cap hit once a player is extended. I repeat, this should be applied only to players who were drafted by the team that extends them. Once a player is traded, he loses this right. The amount by which the cap hit is lessened is also very logical - it is the difference between the player's rookie salary and the max rookie salary for the respective year.

Please, read my article and feel free to comment. I would really be interested in what you guys have to say about my idea.

A It appears you've used "cap" and tax" interchangeably, which they are not. In doing so, it makes your subpoints and argument confusing and hard to evaluate.

B As a side issue, in your article you made two idle assumptions ...1 if they had drafted a lesser player, they wouldn't have been faced with whether to pay the max or not2 if they could have, OKC would have paid Harden the max

...and based on how things went down, I think those assumptions are both likely to be false. The issue that delineates between a max extension and a less-than-max one isn't player worth to his team, or player worth relative to another player, but rather what any other team will pay him. if Harden (or Tyreke Evans, or whoever) isn't worth the max to OKC and they refuse to overpay, but if some other team was willing to pay it, then all the rules changes in the world don't keep Harden in OKC.

Thank you for your response. I am aware of the difference between the salary cap and the luxury tax but I guess I got carried away and used them interchangeably which is a big mistake on my part.

I'll try to present the idea accounting for that mistake - the reduction of salary would only count for the amount of money a team is over the luxury tax threshold. The salaries would still count towards the salary cap and would make them go over the threshold but they would not pay luxury tax, or would have that luxury tax reduced by that amount. Does that sound like something worth considering or is it too unclear to be introduced as a rule? What do you think?

DBoys wrote:if Harden (or Tyreke Evans, or whoever) isn't worth the max to OKC and they refuse to overpay, but if some other team was willing to pay it, then all the rules changes in the world don't keep Harden in OKC.

100% agreed. A team might decide to pay the max to Reggie Jackson for all we know, no rule would make the Thunder match that. I just think this rule would give a small-market team a better opportunity to keep the players it drafted without facing the new steeper penalties for going significantly over the luxury tax threshold.

"Does that sound like something worth considering or is it too unclear to be introduced as a rule? "

Keep in mind that1 There can be no simple alterations to the CBA. It's a document full of trade offs, and it stays in place as one until it all expires. 2 The full implementation of the tax rules haven't even hit yet, so we have no idea what impact there will be in the long run. Once we see the total result, we might think your solution goes in a completely wrong direction, solves something that isn't in need of solving, or doesn't go far enough.

As far as the idea itself1 Creative thinking on rules changes is fun to think about, but the NBA rules typically are less about creative ways to a fair balance, and more about what survives hard negotiations. 2 I can see benefit to the league in having advantages for team continuity, where a team keeps the players it drafted. That helps the fan base. 3 You didn't address 2nd-rounders and rookie free agents, but assuming those end up in the same equation (and why wouldn't they?), it creates the potential for greater impact on finding hidden jewels, but also for abuse. 4 Your solution doesn't necessarily give the greatest advantage to teams that draft well, or to small market teams. A team like Miami, built through free agency, is going to get tax discounts too. Big market teams like NY and LA may be able to spend even more or pay less tax while spending whatever they wish, with this in play.5 You've prioritized kids over veterans for end of the roster openings. The players union probably won't like that.6 The NBA owners wanted even harsher incentives to keep team spending below the tax line, so your idea of adding ways to spend more is the exact opposite of what they were seeking. 7 Your idea would make it easier for there to be a few super-teams, at the expense of the rest of the league, which probably goes completely opposite to where the league owners want. In theory, I think they envision 30 teams each having one of the top 30 players in the league, then creating what they can around that and competing, and no teams spending over the the tax line.8 Your idea "solves" one supposed problem, while making a different one even worse. If you give even more advantage to good draft choices, then you've increased the reward for tanking. 9 By the time we get to a new CBA negotiation, forcing teams to make hard salary choices and creating more player movement from one team to another, may be seen as a positive not a negative.

Thank you again for your detailed answer that focuses on much more points than I had thought of.

I realize it is difficult to amend the CBA but the idea was whether it is plausible to have a similar rule.

Because you mentioned how teams would benefit from this rule to go substantially over the cap - they could think about lowering the cap a bit. Thus, teams would put more value on drafting well. Like you mentioned, my idea is good for players continuity with the team that drafted them.

DBoys wrote:5 You've prioritized kids over veterans for end of the roster openings. The players union probably won't like that.

Absolutely agreed and didn't think about that. That would be a major problem.

DBoys wrote:7 Your idea would make it easier for there to be a few super-teams, at the expense of the rest of the league

I wouldn't call it easier because how easy is it exactly to not miss a lottery pick while you still have them? Look at Cleveland or Orlando after they drafted LeBron/Dwight. Both teams had lottery picks before becoming good and used them on guys like Luke Jackson (Cleveland) or Fran Vazquez and J.J. Redick (Orlando). They also traded away at least one lottery pick and their drafting outside the lottery is nothing to write about.

I guess teams like the Lakers and Heat who are always big players in free agency will instead leverage trades towards acquiring draft picks instead of other players, thus attempting to make a super team but still, why would you trade them your draft pick if it is so valuable...